Tutorial on People Recommendations in Social Networks - ACM RecSys 2013,Hong Kong
Report
Share
•50 likes•19,960 views
Tutorial on People Recommendations in Social Networks - ACM RecSys 2013,Hong Kong
•50 likes•19,960 views
Report
Share
Tutorials at ACM RecSys 2013 Social Networks Learning to Rank Beyond Friendship Pref. Handling Beyond Friendship: The Art, Science and Applications of Recommending People to People in Social Networks by Luiz Augusto Pizzato (University of Sydney, Australia) & Anmol Bhasin (LinkedIn, USA) While Recommender Systems are powerful drivers of engagement and transactional utility in social networks, People recommenders are a fairly involved and diverse subdomain. Consider that movies are recommended to be watched, news is recommended to be read, people however, are recommended for a plethora of reasons – such as recommendation of people to befriend, follow, partner, targets for an advertisement or service, recruiting, partnering romantically and to join thematic interest groups. This tutorial aims to first describe the problem domain, touch upon classical approaches like link analysis and collaborative filtering and then take a rapid deep dive into the unique aspects of this problem space like Reciprocity, Intent understanding of recommender and the recomendee, Contextual people recommendations in communication flows and Social Referrals – a paradigm for delivery of recommendations using the Social Graph. These aspects will be discussed in the context of published original work developed by the authors and their collaborators and in many cases deployed in massive-scale real world applications on professional networks such as LinkedIn. Introduction The basics of Social Recommenders People recommender systems Special Topics in People Recommenders Why reciprocal (people) recommenders are different to traditional (product) recommendations Multi-Objective Optimization Intent Understanding Feature Engineering Social Referral Pathfinding Concluding remarks The pre-requisite for this tutorial is some familiarity with foundational Recommender Systems, Data Mining, Machine Learning and Social Network Analysis literature. Date Oct 13, 2013 (08:30 – 10:15)
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot(20)
![[Final]collaborative filtering and recommender systems](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/finalcollaborativefilteringandrecommendersystems-141103044224-conversion-gate01-thumbnail.jpg?width=768&fit=bounds)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked(20)
Similar to Tutorial on People Recommendations in Social Networks - ACM RecSys 2013,Hong Kong
Similar to Tutorial on People Recommendations in Social Networks - ACM RecSys 2013,Hong Kong(20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded(20)
Tutorial on People Recommendations in Social Networks - ACM RecSys 2013,Hong Kong
- 1. Beyond Friendship The science, applications & quirks of People Recommenders in Social Networks ACM RecSys - 2013 Hong Kong LinkedIn Confidential ©2013 All Rights Reserved Anmol Bhasin Director of Engineering Recommendations, Personalization & A/B Jointly presented with Luiz Augusto Pizza from University of Sydney
- 2. Disclaimer Material presented references publicly shared research work done at LinkedIn Opinions expressed however are mine and do not represent the official position of LinkedIn
- 3. Outline Introduction The basics of Social Recommenders People recommender systems Reciprocity & its quirks o Cornerstones o Special Topics in People Recommenders o Motivating Examples o Intent Understanding o Reciprocity & Multi-Objective Optimization o Evaluation o Some Novel approaches & Applications o Social Lens & Referrals o Virtual Profiles o Endorsements o Conclusions 3
- 4. Cornerstones o Accuracy & Precision are key Revenue at stake o Reciprocity throws a wrench o Three actors at play Multiple (possibly competing) objectives to optimize recommendee recommendation recommender system o Evaluations are delayed Conversion of a lead takes days/weeks/months o Not deployed in Isolation Usually co-located work with other recommenders, search and Social Streams 4
- 5. Outline Introduction The basics of Social Recommenders People recommender systems Reciprocity & its quirks Cornerstones Motivating Examples o Special Topics in People Recommenders o Intent Understanding o Multi-Objective Optimization o Evaluation Quirks o Some Novel approaches & Applications o Social Lens & Referrals o Virtual Profiles o Endorsements o Conclusions 5
- 6. Motivating Examples o People You May Know o Utility To Recommendee, Recommender System, Reciprocity 6
- 7. Motivating Examples o People You May Want to Follow Utility To Recommendee, Recommender System 7
- 8. Motivating Examples o InMail Suggest Reciprocity, MOO, Utility to Recommendee, Recommended 8
- 9. Motivating Examples o Talent Match o Reciprocity, MOO, Utility to all parties 9
- 10. Motivating Examples o Endorsements o Reciprocity ?, Utility to Recommender System 10
- 11. Motivating Examples Email News Feed Notification o Endorsements A o endorses B No Reciprocity, Utility B Recommender System to notified B “accepts” endorsement Endorsement recommendations B endorses C B endorses D
- 12. Outline Introduction The basics of Social Recommenders People recommender systems Reciprocity & its quirks Cornerstones Motivating Examples o Special Topics in People Recommenders o Intent Understanding o Multi-Objective Optimization o Some Novel approaches & Applications o Social Lens & Referrals o Virtual Profiles o Endorsements o Conclusions 12
- 13. Intent Understanding Image credit: http://www.acquisio.com/
- 15. Recruiting Intent o Look-alike Models Well Researched technique in Computational Advertising Finding/Ranking behavioral look-alikes Performance at a certain reach Reference : http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-networkblog/2013/sep/06/lookalike-modelling-advertising-demystified
- 16. Recruiting Intent o Target Definition is crucial How do we define targets/labels to predict? It is a waste of time to develop features and learning algorithms without carefully defining the right target T: Profile Based Recruiters U: Non-Recruiters VT: Recruiters not showing Recruiting activity CT: Recruiters showing activity CU: Showing Recruiting activity VU: Not showing Recruiting activity : positives : negatives
- 17. Recruiting Intent o As always, magic is in the features Who are you? - industry, title, seniority, function, skill, groups … What are you doing ? - page views, searches, invitations, news reads, group memberships Temporal Behavioral featues.. target window t0 tn tn+1 target time feature window 17
- 18. Recruiting Intent o L2 Regularized Logistic Regression o Model derives a response score for each user from his static profile and past online activities o Score indicates the likelihood that this user will respond to the ad campaign (clicks or conversion) 18
- 19. Job Seeking Intent 2008.02 2010.05 Given 1) the member started job a at time ta 2) the member hasn’t change from job a till now 3) various information (x) we have about the member Predict the probability of the user changing to job b at time y 2013.09
- 20. Job Seeking - Survival Analysis Review of Survival Analysis is the time of death/event/purchase is the survival time Probability density distribution of event Survival function Hazards function
- 21. Job Seeking – Survival Analysis Cox Proportional Hazards Model for Survival Analysis How to incorporate covariates/additional information? – Covariates are multiplicatively relative to hazards (Cox Proportional Hazards) – Another way to do this is to have covariates multiplicatively related to Survival (Accelerated Failure time) What can be included in x? – Time independent variables Titles of Jobs, Companies at play, long term user preferences – Time dependent interval variables Mean time to switch between jobs in an area, industry – Time dependent external variables Seasonal softness – Time independent external variables Economic conditions
- 22. Job Seeking Intent Weibull Distribution Basic Weibull distribution Proportional hazards model with Weibull distribution Scale of the curve Reference : http://data.princeton.edu/pop509/ParametricSurvival.pdf
- 23. Probability of switch Job Seeking – Feature Engineering Months since graduation What should you transition to .. and when ? 23
- 24. Job Seeking – Feature Engineering Open to relocation ? Region similarity based on profiles or network Region transition probability Model individuals propensity to migrate and most likely migration target
- 25. Job Seeking Bayesian Proportional Hazards Model A hazards model for each transition pair m: {ja -> jb} Hierarchical Bayesian models: handle transitions without much training data data Transition Reference : Jian Wang, Yi Zhang, Christian Posse, A Bhasin. Is it time for a career switch? Proceedings of the 22nd World Wide Web conference, 2013
- 26. Job Seeking Intent What Can the Model Tell Us? Tenure-based Decision Probability – The probability that user make a job transition from to at time between and to (in the near future) given that the user doesn’t change job from till now
- 27. Job Seeking Intent H-one • Single set of parameters H-Source • Multiple sets of parameters for transitions H-SourceDest • Multiple sets of parameters for transitions H-SourceDestCov • Further incorporates covariates
- 29. Multi-Objective Optimization Recommender EDITORIAL AD SERVER content Clicks on FP links influence downstream supply distribution PREMIUM DISPLAY (GUARANTEED) NETWORK PLUS (Non-Guaranteed) Downstream engagement (Time spent)
- 30. Multi-Objective Optimization Serving Content on Y! Front Page : Click Shaping What do we want to optimize? Maximize clicks (maximize downstream supply from FP) But consider the following Article 1: CTR=5%, utility per click = 5 Article 2: CTR=4.9%, utility per click=10 By promoting 2, we lose 1 click/100 visits, gain 5 utils If we do this for a large number of visits --- lose some clicks but obtain significant gains in utility? E.g. lose 5% relative CTR, gain 40% in utility (revenue, engagement, etc)
- 31. Multi-Objective Optimization other Why call it Click Shaping? other video videogames tv buzz autos finance gmy.news health autos travel hotjobs travel buzz video videogames tv hotjobs tech movies movies tech finance gmy.news health AFTER new.music new.music BEFORE sports sports shopping shopping news shine shine rivals omg realestate realestate omg 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% -8.00% -10.00% es othe r gam tv vide o vide o -6.00% om g rea le s tat e rival s -4.00% buzz finan ce gmy .ne w s heal th hotjo bs mov ie s new .mus ic new s 0.00% -2.00% aut o s Supply distribution Changes shin e shop ping spor ts te ch tra ve l rivals news SHAPING can happen with respect to any downstream metrics (like engagement)
- 32. Multi-Objective Optimization n articles K properties m user segments A1 S1 A2 S2 news finance … … … omg An Sm CTR of user segment i on article j: pij Time duration of i on j: dij 32
- 33. Multi-Objective Optimization Scalarization Goal Programming Simplex constraints on xiJ is always applied Constraints are linear Every 10 mins, solve x Use this x as the serving scheme in the next 10 mins Reference : Deepak Agarwal, Bee-Chung Chen, Pradheep Elango, Xuanhui Wang. Click shaping to optimize multiple objectives. Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD’11)
- 35. Real Time Talent Match
- 36. Multi-Objective Optimization Increase TalentMatch Utility fn(booking rate, email rate, reply rate) Job-Seeking Intent: actives & passives 16x reply rate on career-related mail Reply Rate Reference : Mario Rodriguez, Christian Posse, Ethan Zhang. Multiple Objective Optimization in Recommender Systems. Proceedings of the Sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems (RecSys '12)
- 37. Multi-Objective Optimization Match Score Distributions Talent Match ranking Match Score 1, Item X, 0.98, Non-Seeker 2, Item Y, 0.91, Non-Seeker --------------------------------------3, Item Z, 0.89, Active Divergence score Divergence Function Δ() Perturbation Function f() Perturbed ranking Match Score, Perturbed Score 1, Item X, 0.98, 0.98, Non-Seeker 2, Item Z, 0.89, 0.93, Active -----------------------------------------------3, Item Y, 0.91, 0.91, Non-Seeker Objective Function g() How: Controlled Perturbation Objective score
- 38. Multi-Objective Optimization Perturbation Function Divergence Function Objective Function
- 39. Multi-Objective Optimization Loss Function Objective and divergence depend on a sort/rank, so gradient-based optimization not directly applicable
- 40. Connecting Talent to Opportunity MOO Pareto Optimization
- 41. Connecting Talent to Opportunity MOO 0 54 27 100 Match Score Histogram Divergence
- 42. Multi-Objective Optimization Experiments A/B Test – Treatment 1: 1.15 boost – Treatment 2: 1.07 boost – Control: 1.0 boost Expectations – 50% increase in reply rate for 1.07 boost – 100% increase in reply rate for 1.15 boost – Expected booking rate and email rate to remain unchanged or minimally affected
- 43. Multi-Objective Optimization Booking rate α = β = 1.07 0% α = β = 1.15 -0.4% Email rate α = β = 1.07 31% α = β = 1.15 25% Reply rate α = β = 1.07 22% α = β = 1.15 42%
- 44. Evaluation quirks Days to act on Recommendation Weeks to reciprocate Does not work in isolation - Success only if - Reciprocation comes from first impression from recommender - First impression : Did not see that result on any channel “K” days before seeing it on the Recommender
- 45. Outline Introduction The basics of Social Recommenders People recommender systems Reciprocity & its quirks Cornerstones Motivating Examples Special Topics in People Recommenders Intent Understanding Multi-Objective Optimization Evaluation quirks o Some Novel approaches & Applications o Social Lens & Referrals o Virtual Profiles o Endorsements o Conclusions 45
- 46. Social Referral
- 47. Social Referral Formulation When user ui interacts with Group g j Define C = f , the candidate neighbor set Foreach uk Î neighbor(ui ) Guk = {g0 , g1,...gk } - Generate - If g j Î Gu then k the top-k group recommendations C Å (uk , g j ) Rank order C using Connection strength between ui &uk Probability ofuk joiningg j Combined score using the above two factors
- 48. Social Referral Linkedin Group: Text Analytics From: Deepak Agarwal – Engineering Director, LinkedIn I found this group interesting, and I think you will too Deepak Linkedin Group: Text Analytics 2X > 2X conversion Conversion Reference : Mohammad Amin, Baoshi Yan, Sripad Sriram, Anmol Bhasin, Christian Posse. Social Referral : Using network connections to deliver recommendations. Proceedings of the Sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems (RecSys '12)
- 49. Social Referral Quirks and Cautionary points Controlled number of referral nudges to the source user - If nudged too many times, it may degrade the experience Controlled number of referrals to the target user - Presumably degrades the experience of the target user as well Only useful to use social referrals to individuals not engaged with the product - If the target already interacts with many items, the referral has marginal utility Referred items of high quality - If the item referred is of poor quality, the entire exercise is futile
- 50. Virtual Profiles
- 51. Virtual Profiles Title : Eng Dir Company : LinkedIn Location : CA,USA Skills : ML, RecSys Title : Sr. Manager Company : Netflix Location : CA, USA Skills : Machine Learning, Data Mining Title : Eng Mgr Company : Linkedin Location : PA, USA Skills : Machine Learning, Statistics, Data Mining Title : Sr. Mgr<1>, Eng Dir<1>, Eng Mgr <1> Company : LinkedIn<1>, Netflix<1> Google<1>, Location : CA,USA <2>, PA, USA<1> Skills : ML<2>, RecSys<1>, Stats<1>, DM<1>
- 52. Virtual Profiles Point-wise Mutual Information Pick Top K overrepresented features (f) from the Group Join distribution vs the overall userpopulation feature distribution A representative projection of the item (Group) in the user feature space
- 53. Virtual Profiles – Group join propensity Ranker MEMBER FEATURES Group virtual profile Group Features Pjoin Social Information Match feature pair includes Group Virtual Profile features, Group popularity features Member Profile features Contextual features (device, location) Interaction featues L2 regularized Logistic Regression (Liblinear, VW, Mahout, ADMM) for Ranking Reference : Haishan Liu, Mohammad Amin, Baoshi Yan, Anmol Bhasin. Generating Supplemental Content Information using Virtual Profiles.To appear at ACM RecSys’13
- 54. Endorsements 54
- 55. Endorsements Rank Ordered Candidates with LR with L2 penalty Features – – – – – – – Company overlap School overlap Group overlap Industry and functional area similarity Title similarity Site interactions Co-interactions Open Questions – Do they share the same skill ? – Validity of the endorsement ? Candidate generation Feature Vectors - Company - Title - Groups - Industry -… Classifier Suggested Endorsements (ranked by likelihood) 55
- 56. Endorsements Skill marketing Skill recommendations Skill endorsements ©2012 LinkedIn Cororation. All Rights Reserved.
- 57. Endorsements Can We Find Influencers In Venture Capital? 57
- 58. Big Challenge (Shameless plug) Detect when we don’t have “ANY” good items to show to a particular user Top K WTF Personalized Thresholds for users – Cost of Consumption Marginal utility of showing a particular item to a particular user is –ve How to use crowdsourcing to rate WTF for a particular user When not to show.. 58
- 59. Outline Introduction The basics of Social Recommenders People recommender systems Reciprocity & its quirks Cornerstones Motivating Examples Special Topics in People Recommenders Intent Understanding Multi-Objective Optimization Evaluation quirks Some Novel approaches & Applications Social Lens & Referrals Virtual Profiles Endorsements o Conclusions 59
- 60. Conclusions o Accuracy & Precision are key Revenue at stake o Reciprocity throws a wrench o Three actors at play Multiple (possibly competing) objectives to optimize o Evaluations are delayed recommendee recommendation recommender system Conversion of a lead takes days/weeks/months o Not deployed in Isolation Usually co-located work with other recommenders, search and Social Streams 60
- 61. It takes a village! LinkedIn Engineering : Abhishek Gupta, Adam Smyczek, Adil Aijaz, Alan Li, Baoshi Yan, Bee-Chung Chen, Deepak Agarwal, Ethan Zhang, Haishan Liu, Igor Perisic, Jonathan Traupman, Liang Zhang, Lokesh Bajaj, Mario Rodriguez, Mitul Tiwari, Mohammad Amin, Parul Jain, Paul Ogilvie, Sam Shah, Sanjay Dubey, Tarun Kumar, Trevor Walker, Utku Irmak LinkedIn Product : Andrew Hill, Christian posse, Gyanda Sachdeva, Parker Barrile, Sachit Kamat External Partners : Christian Posse, Mike Grishaver, Monica Rogati, Luiz Augusto Pizzato, Yi Zhang Alphabetically sorted
Editor's Notes
- SamSuggestions drive more people through this loop, faster.This is the KEY to virality
- Here we consider failure as a user making a decision to transit to a new job. Let p(y) denote the probability density function of such an event.
- This probability density function represents the basic pro- portional hazards model that models the tenure before a transition with associated covariates.
- Unreasonable effectiveness of Big Data.. This chart shows the probability of holding a title across all titles, plotted vs number of months after graduation. Notice the spikes.. They are ~12 month almost perfectly aligned.. Remember the itch that you had when you finished 2 years at your company
- This probability density function represents the basic pro- portional hazards model that models the tenure before a transition with associated covariates.
- Understand this graph better
- Talent Match: job posting flow: When recruiters post jobs we in real time suggest top candidates fit for the job
- So, Intuitively, it makes sense to suggest users who are job seekers in TalentMatch. But we confirmed our intuition, we ran the numbers, and saw that users with a high job seeking intent (actives and passives) have a much higher rate of reply to career related emails when compared to non-job-seekers (16 times the reply rate). And this is exactly the facet of the utility function of TalentMatch that we are interested in improving. So, what we want to do is incorporate the job seeker intent into the TalentMatch model, and we want to do so without negatively affecting the booking rate and the email rate.
- So, what we want is a controlled perturbation of the ranking output by the talent match model, and this is how we are gonna do it: given the talent match ranking, we run a perturbation function on it that generates another ranking, the perturbed ranking, which optimizes for a metric we’re interested in (in the case of TalentMatch, it’s number of users with high-job seeking intent in the top-12 recommendations). Given the 2 rankings and their distribution of match scores, we can compute the distance between them using a variety of metrics, for example KL divergence or Euclidean distance. This divergence score is what will help us to make sure we are not negatively affecting the quality of the recommendations. Notice how, in the perturbed ranking, item Z was bumped from its original third position, below the cutoff line, to the second position, and so whereas before we had 2 non-seekers above the cutoff, meaning they would be recommended, now we have a non-seeker and an active. Also notice, that the perturbation is minimal. We should feel comfortable bumping item Z to the second position, but not to the first position.There are then 3 functions that we need to define: the perturbation function, the divergence function, and the objective function. The parameters of the perturbation function is what we will be estimating based the performance established by the divergence and objective measures: we want high scores on the objective and low scores on the divergence.
- Here is theinstantiation of those functions for the TalentMatch case. The perturbation function simply applies a small boost to the match score, denoted by the letter “y”, and we allow that boost to be different for active and passive job seekers (as denoted by the alpha and the beta parameters). The divergence function is simply the Euclidean distance between the distribution of scores in the talent match ranking and the distribution of scores in the perturbed ranking. This is simply a measure of how match quality was affected (a divergence score of 0 means that the quality of the matches remained unaffected). The objective is the average number of actives and passives in the top-12.
- To find a good perturbation function, we can construct a typical loss function, where the effect of the divergence is governed by a regularization parameter lambda, and then optimize this loss function to find the parameters of the perturbation function, alpha and beta, which correspond respectively to the boost of active and passive job seekers. However, there is a complicating factor: both the divergence and objective functions depend on a ranking, which depends on a sorting operation, and therefore, traditional gradient based approaches are not readily applicable. Also, what should we set lambda to? We don’t just want to use the lambda that generates the lowest loss, we are actually more interested in what our options are regarding what our tradeoff is going to be between the objective and the divergence function.
- We will discuss computational strategies for optimizing the perturbation function in a moment, but before that, we need to discuss the kind of optimization we are actually interested in. What we really want is Pareto optimization, where there is not one optimal solution, instead, there are some solutions which are better in one objective, while other solutions are better in others. In this plot, we have the objective, the average number of actives and passives in the top-12 results, on the y-axis, and the divergence on the x-axis. The original ranking has on average 4 actives and passives in the top-12, as shown in the table in the top left corner. Also, by definition, the divergence of this original ranking, is 0. Each point (or bubble) in the plot represents a specific assignment to the parameters of the perturbation function: alpha and beta. We see on the plot that the only way to increase the objective on the y-axis, is to also allow an increase on the divergence on the x-axis. We also see that for a given divergence, say 50, there are many assignments of alpha and beta with that divergence, with varying scores on the objective. We want the maximum objective for each divergence, and those are the points in the pareto frontier, which are the red points in the plot. So, no matter what divergence you allow, you should pick a point on the pareto frontier. Back to the table of sample plans, we see that if we set alpha and beta to 1.15, we can double the the number of actives and passives in the top-12 (from 4 to 8) while paying the cost of having a divergence of 64, and that this is a point in the pareto frontier.
- Here we can get a better idea of what the divergence scores actually mean, the top left has the distribution of the original, unperturbed model, and as we move across the quadrant, we see how the divergence increases (0, 27, 54, and 100). In the top left histogram, we see the bump around the 0.9’s, and with each histogram, the bump is gradually attenuated, until there is no more bump in the bottom right. So, we would probably be willing to accept a divergence in the 50-60’s range (as shown in the bottom left), but not in the 100’s, which is what’s shown in the bottom right.
- Given that we only had 2 parameters in our perturbation function, grid search was a satisfactory approach and so that’s what we used. When you have a set of pareto optimal values, typically what it’s done is that you look for the proverbial knee of the curve, a point after which you have to pay too much in one objective to get increases in another, and our curve actually displays this characteristic: the Pareto tradeoff is constant up to a divergence of about 60, which as we saw earlier in the histogram slide, was not too bad. Still we did not know exactly what a given divergence would do to the booking and email rate, so we picked a couple of values to A/B test. We picked the maximum value on that line, the one at the knee, and a point in the middle, which corresponded to a boost of 1.15 and 1.07 respectively.So, what did we expect from the tests? Since we knew the rate of reply to career-related emails of users with high-job seeking intent, as well as the expected proportion of those users in the top-12 recommendations, it was easy to get a ball park figure of how much of an increase in reply rate we would obtain: we expected a 50% increase over control for the 1.07 treatment and a 100% increase over control for the 1.15 treatment. Regarding the other 2 facets of the utility function, the booking rate and the email rate of job posters to candidates, what we hoped was that they would remain unchanged or only be minimally affected.
- So, how did we do? Let’s see how facet of the utility was affected. The booking rate remained mostly unchanged, with possibly a very slight dip of 0.4% on the 1.15 treatment. The email rate, to our surprise actually increased in both treatments. This tells us that somehow, the profiles of users with high-job seeking intent were more appealing to job posters than those who weren’t. Specifically what about their profile was more appealing is something we have yet to look into. This also tells us that maybe the snippets that we show job posters were not a great representation of the value for them, and that perhaps better snippets would lead to higher booking rates. Finally, we see that we were able to increase the reply rate, which is what we had originally set out to do, and that the increase for the 1.15 treatment was double that of the 1.07 treatment: 42% and 22%, which was in line with our expectations. Now, these numbers are pretty good, but why weren’t they as high as we had expected? Well, we had thought that job posters contacted all the recommendations, since it did not cost them more to contact all than to contact one, but as we observed in the email rate, which we were able to improve, job posters do not, in fact, contact all of the recommendations.
- A brand new Recommendation Delivery paradigm – Tested on LinkedIn Groups to generate 2X Group Join rate. Applicable to advertising as well..The idea is simple - Reverse the Social Proof idea . Ask the actor to recommend their connections to interact with this item. - The message comes from the individual not LinkedInInherently socially endorsedTimely and contextualCan be applied to other recommendation paradigms as well. Using social recommendations to drive engagement on products on a network/website
- A brand new Recommendation Delivery paradigm – Tested on LinkedIn Groups to generate 2X Group Join rate. Applicable to advertising as well..The idea is simple - Reverse the Social Proof idea . Ask the actor to recommend their connections to interact with this item. - The message comes from the individual not LinkedInInherently socially endorsedTimely and contextual
- Incredibly powerful whetted paradigm that we are excited to try to rope into our Ads offerings
- A brand new Recommendation Delivery paradigm – Tested on LinkedIn Groups to generate 2X Group Join rate. Applicable to advertising as well..The idea is simple - Reverse the Social Proof idea . Ask the actor to recommend their connections to interact with this item. - The message comes from the individual not LinkedInInherently socially endorsedTimely and contextual
- Incredibly powerful whetted paradigm that we are excited to try to rope into our Ads offerings
- Solve the impedance mismatch by creating the Group representation in the user space. This concept is used extensively at LinkedIn for all kinds of user recommendations, not just groups.
- SamNow we can prompt your connections to validate your skills and expertise through an endorsementThis moves more people through the loop faster
- SamHow would you think about this problem? How do you decide what people and skills to show?
- Now we have all the pieces…To reinforce how this works so well,limited adopted by asking manual entry;accelerate by asking them to confirm, but no validation;social tagging, viral loops, and crowdsourcing -> provides the biggest winYou have a skills section -> people may enter their own skills, though not validatedYou recommend skills to add -> more people add skills, still not validatedYou provide a viral endorsement system -> don’t have the catalyst to get adoptionYou need recommendations as a core piece of this ecosystemSo we have the data, what are the applications? Why is this important?
- PeteTO ADD: “Reid endorsed you for Venture Capital.”It’s not just the number of endorsements, it’s the nature.